Contribution
My Lords, I start by responding to the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, who is not in his place at the moment, on Amendment 89A. I will write to noble Lords with the information I have about the likely future origin of steel for UK Railways.
On these amendments, I hope that all noble Lords will note that rail makes up only 1.4% of overall transport greenhouse gas emissions, and rail freight emits 76% less carbon per tonne than road transport; and there are even lower emissions using electric traction or low-carbon fuels. Rail is therefore already one of the cleanest ways to travel, which is something we should be proud of. Of course, there is always more to be done, and because of the duty in Clause 18 requiring GBR to act in the public interest, including by considering the environment, it will be subject to more requirements than Network Rail, the current infrastructure provider.
Amendment 93 touches on a critical issue for the railway. Noble Lords referred to the impacts of extreme weather on the network that we have all recently seen and experienced, particularly this summer. That is exactly why one of the five strategic objectives in the long-term rail strategy is environmental sustainability, which will include protecting transport links by focusing on climate adaptation. The long-term rail strategy discussion document published today refers to the critical importance of this issue and commits that the strategy will suggest prioritisation of climate resilience works based on the areas at greatest risk.
However, I agree about not waiting for the strategy to act. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, both said that more action is needed now. Indeed, Network Rail is already developing adaptation pathways that will, on a region-by-region basis, set out the organisation’s approach to responding to environmental challenges, focusing on the high-priority parts of the network. This has already led to meaningful improvements and, particularly in respect of the events of this summer, widely significant works to alleviate extreme temperatures and soil moisture deficit all over southern and eastern England. This will of course be continued by GBR once it is established.
On Amendments 111 and 130B, I am happy to reassure noble Lords that the environment and the protection of nature will form a vital part of decision-making on the railway, just as the amendments seek. All relevant environmental legislation and targets will apply to GBR in full and, as I said, GBR will be subject to existing environmental requirements at both the national and devolved level. As discussed with the noble Earl, I can confirm today that targets in existing legislation are referenced in the long-term rail strategy, to demonstrate the importance that the Government place on this. I hope that noble Lords will see this reference in the discussion document.
I turn to Amendment 330J. The Government are working to develop a long-term strategic approach to decarbonising and adapting our railways, and GBR will be vital in progressing this. That is why the long-term rail strategy also contains a strategic objective on environmental sustainability, which includes protecting transport links by focusing on climate adaptation and delivering rail decarbonisation. As I said, GBR has a duty under Clause 18 to act in the public interest. GBR will discharge this duty when it develops its business plan, where it must set out the activities that it will undertake to meet its duties and its long-term rail strategy, both of which clearly have environmental considerations.
On Amendment 78A, it might be helpful to confirm that, where subsidy control rules apply, that is to ensure proper management of public money and transparency. Subsidy control is not intended to—and will not—prevent the Government from spending money on their priorities. It would certainly not prevent the Government from spending money on the environment or on accessibility. When funding the railway, the Secretary of State will also be under duties to consider the environment and the interests and needs of disabled people, which will inform her funding decisions. In summary, GBR must consider the environment and environmental targets, which will be embedded in key strategic decisions on the railway.
Regarding Amendment 313, as I am sure the noble Earl is aware, the Climate Change Act 2008 already requires the Government to prepare policies and proposals to meet the UK’s carbon budgets. The most recent plan was published in October last year. It includes policies to decarbonise transport, including the railway. It supports vital infrastructure improvements such as the further electrification of the network and rolling stock and recognises the importance of shifting passenger and freight journeys from more carbon-intensive transport modes to rail. As I outlined earlier, this can make a huge difference to carbon outputs.
The forthcoming rolling stock and infrastructure strategy will set out, for the first time in 30 years, an integrated plan to take this forward. Noble Lords referred to modern technology, including the use of battery technology and discontinuous electrification. They also referred to the recently announced train order for TransPennine, which includes trains that run on electric wires and have batteries where the wires are absent.
Given these existing provisions, it would be duplicative to impose an additional requirement on the Secretary of State to produce a plan to reduce the carbon footprint of the railway network. The Government are already working on this across departments so that we have a joined-up response to climate change.